AGL RESOURCES: Agrees To Settle Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in NJ---------------------------------------------------------------AGL Resources, Inc. reached an agreement to settle thesecurities class action filed against it in the Superior Courtof the State of New Jersey, County of Somerset, Law Division,styled "Green Meadows Partners, LLP on behalf of itself and allothers similarly situated v. Robert P. Kenney, Bernard S. Lee,Craig G. Mathews, Dr. Vera King Farris, James J. Forese, J.Russell Hawkins, R. Van Whisnand, John Kean, NUI and theCompany."

The Complaint, brought on behalf of a potential class of thestockholders of NUI Corporation (NUI), names as defendants allof the directors of NUI (Individual Defendants), NUI and theCompany. The Company first became aware of the Complaint whenNUI notified the Company that it had been formally served onSeptember 9, 2004 and forwarded to the Company a copy of theComplaint for review. The Company was formally served with theComplaint on September 14, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that purported financial incentives in theform of change of control payments and indemnification rightscreated a conflict of interest on the part of certain of theIndividual Defendants in evaluating a possible sale of NUI. NUIhas communicated that it believes the change in control paymentsinclude a retirement plan for directors, last amended as ofJanuary 24, 1995, that provides for a lump sum payment of theretirement benefits that would be paid to such directors onretirement, discounted for present value, in the event of achange of control.

The Complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants,aided and abetted by the Company, breached fiduciary duties owedto the plaintiff and the potential class by:

(1) deciding to sell NUI to the Company without making the requisite effort to obtain the best share price,

(2) agreeing to an unfair and inadequate cash sale price of $13.70 per share,

(3) entering into a merger agreement with the Company that provided for a $7.5 million break-up fee, and

(4) failing to disclose material information in NUI's preliminary proxy statement filed on August 13, 2004, including, among other things, the precise amount of consideration received by each director in connection with the sale of NUI, strategic alternatives considered by NUI and its financial advisors, additional details of the sale process, and prior relationships, if any, between NUI, the Company and/or NUI's financial advisors

The Complaint demands judgment:

(i) determining that the action is properly maintainable as a class action,

(ii) declaring that the Individual Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and the potential class, aided and abetted by the Company,

(iii) enjoining the sale of NUI, or if consummated, rescinding the sale,

(vii) granting such other relief as the Court may find just and proper

On October 12, 2004, the Company reached an agreement inprinciple with Green Meadows Partners, LLP to settle thislitigation. Although the Company believes that the Complaint iswithout merit, it also believes that litigation could delay andcreate uncertainty as to the Company's ability to consummate theacquisition of NUI and that such delay and uncertainty are notin the Company's or its shareholders' best interests.

The settlement calls for NUI to provide certain additionalinformation and disclosures to its shareholders, as reflected inthe "Additional Disclosure" section of NUI's proxy statementsupplement, filed on October 12, 2004 with the SEC. Inaddition, as part of the settlement, NUI and the Company willconsent to a settlement class that consists of persons holdingshares of NUI common stock at any time from July 15, 2004 untilthe date on which the acquisition is consummated, and we willpay plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs in the amount of$285,000. No part of these attorney's fees or costs will bepaid out of funds that would otherwise have been paid to NUI'sshareholders.

ANTHEM INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of CT AG ERISA Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed thedismissal of a class action filed against Anthem, Inc. by theConnecticut Attorney General on behalf of a purported class ofHMO and Point of Service members in Connecticut.

No monetary damages are sought, although the suit does seekinjunctive relief from the Court to preclude the Company fromallegedly utilizing arbitrary coverage guidelines, making latepayments to providers or members, denying coverage for medicallynecessary prescription drugs and misrepresenting or failing todisclose essential information to enrollees.

The complaint contends that these alleged policies and practicesare a violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA). This case was dismissed by the trial Court onSeptember 19, 2003; the Connecticut Attorney General filed amotion for reconsideration by the trial Court, which was deniedon October 1, 2003. The Attorney General filed an appeal to theEleventh Circuit on December 1, 2003. The Eleventh Circuitheard oral argument on August 11, 2004.

The suits allege that the Connecticut subsidiary has breachedits contracts by, among other things, failing to pay forservices in accordance with the terms of the contracts. Thesuits also allege violations of the Connecticut Unfair TradePractices Act, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fairdealing, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Two of the suits seek injunctive relief and monetary damages(both compensatory and punitive). The third suit, brought bythe Connecticut State Medical Society, seeks injunctive reliefonly. Two of the suits were transferred to the Multi DistrictLitigation (MDL) docket in Miami, Florida, as tag-along cases.All of the tag-along cases in the MDL are being stayed, untilall motions in the main provider track cases have been ruled on.

On July 19, 2001, the Connecticut state Court suit was certifiedas a class action as to three of the plaintiff's fifteenallegations. The class is defined as those physicians whopractice in Connecticut or group practices which are located inConnecticut that were parties to either a ParticipatingPhysician Agreement or a Participating Physicians GroupAgreement with the Company and/or its Connecticut subsidiaryduring the period from 1993 to the present, excluding risk-sharing arrangements and certain other contracts.

The claims certified as class claims are:

(1) the Company's alleged failure to provide plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians with consistent medical utilization/quality management and administration of covered services by paying financial incentive and performance bonuses to providers and the Company's staff members involved in making utilization management decisions;

(2) an alleged failure to maintain accurate books and records whereby improper payments to the plaintiffs were made based on claim codes submitted; and

(3) an alleged failure to provide senior personnel to work with plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians.

The Company appealed the class certification decision, and onSeptember 22, 2003, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed theclass certification decision, and remanded the matter back tothe trial Court for further proceedings. On June 16, 2004, thetrial Court certified a class as to four claims.

The class claims certified are:

(i) the Company's alleged failure to provide plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians with consistent medical utilization/quality management and administration of covered services by paying financial incentive and performance bonuses to providers and the Company's staff members involved in making utilization management decisions;

(ii) an alleged failure to maintain accurate books and records whereby improper payments to the plaintiffs were made based on claim codes submitted;

(iii) an alleged failure to provide senior personnel to work with plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians; and

(iv) alleged provider profiling by the Company

An appeal of the class certification decision was filed on July6, 2004 with the Connecticut Supreme Court. Briefing isproceeding in the Connecticut Supreme Court and the Court hasnot set a date for oral argument. The trial Court proceedingsare currently stayed.

ANTHEM INC.: Files Petition For Certiorari in FL HMO Litigation---------------------------------------------------------------Anthem, Inc. and other managed care organizations filed apetition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Courtover a lower Court ruling granting class certification to allthe Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)claims in the multidistrict litigation pending against them inthe United States District Court in Miami Florida. The rulingalso denied certification to state law claims.

Several class actions were initially filed against the Companyand other managed care organizations asserting various causes ofaction under federal and state law, along with other managedcare organizations. These lawsuits typically allege that thedefendant managed care organizations employ policies andprocedures for providing health care benefits that areinconsistent with the terms of the coverage documents and otherinformation provided to their members, and because of thesemisrepresentations and practices, a class of members has beeninjured in that they received benefits of lesser value than thebenefits represented to and paid for by such members.

On September 26, 2002, Anthem was added as a defendant to a MDLclass action lawsuit pending in Miami, Florida brought on behalfof individual doctors and several medical societies. Defendantsinclude a number of other managed health care organizations.The managed care litigation around the country has beenconsolidated to the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida, underMDL rules.

The Court has split the case into two groups, a "provider track"involving claims by doctors, osteopaths, and other professionalproviders, and a "subscriber track" involving claims bysubscribers or members of the various health plan defendants.

The complaint against Anthem and the other defendants allegesthat the defendants do not properly pay claims, but instead"down-code" claims, improperly "bundle" claims, use erroneous orimproper cost criteria to evaluate claims and delay payingproper claims. The suit also alleges that the defendantsoperate a common scheme and conspiracy in violation of theRacketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suitseeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified monetarydamages, treble damages under RICO and punitive damages.

The Court certified a class in the provider track cases onSeptember 26, 2002, but denied class certification in thesubscriber track cases. Defendants in the provider track casessought, and on November 20, 2002 were granted, an interlocutoryappeal of the class certification in the Eleventh Circuit. Dueto the Company's late addition to the case, it was not includedin the September 26, 2002 class certification order, and istherefore not part of the appeal; however, the Company may beaffected by the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal was argued to the Eleventh Circuit panel on September11, 2003. On September 1, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit issued anopinion affirming the trial Court's class certification of allRICO claims, and reversing the trial Court's class certificationon all state law claims. Defendants filed a petition forcertiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 15, 2004.

Separately, defendants appealed to the Eleventh Circuit anearlier trial Court ruling denying in part motions to enforcethe arbitration clauses in the contracts between the physiciansand the managed care organizations. The trial Court proceedingswere stayed by the Eleventh Circuit, pending a ruling on suchappeal.

The Company and other managed care companies continue to faceseveral suits which have been stayed, as tag-along suits in theMDL.

On October 10, 2001, the Connecticut State Dental Associationand five dental providers filed suit against the Company'sConnecticut subsidiary. The suit alleged breach of contract andviolation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Thesuit was voluntarily withdrawn on November 9, 2001. The claimswere re-filed on April 15, 2002, as two separate suits; one bythe Connecticut State Dental Association and the second by twodental providers, purportedly on behalf of a class of dentalproviders.

Both suits seek injunctive relief, and unspecified monetarydamages (both compensatory and punitive). Both cases weretransferred to the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) docket astag-along cases, and have been consolidated with the MDL suitspending before Judge Federico Moreno in the United StatesDistrict Court in Miami, Florida. Both cases are being stayed,as are all of the tag-along suits in the MDL.

On May 22, 2003, in a case titled "Kenneth Thomas, M.D., et al.,v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al.," several medicalproviders filed suit in federal Court in Miami, Florida againstthe Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Blue Cross and BlueShield plans across the country, including the Company. Thesuit alleges that the BCBS Association and the BCBS Plansviolated RICO and challenges many of the same practices as othersuits in the MDL. This case has been assigned to Judge Morenoin Miami, and is in the early stages of pleading.

On May 8, 2003, in a case titled "Dr. Allen Knecht, et al., v.Cigna, et al.," several chiropractors filed a purported classaction in federal Court in Portland, Oregon, naming several BlueCross Blue Shield Plans, including the Company, as well asseveral commercial insurers. This case also alleges that thedefendants violated RICO and challenges many of the samepractices in regards to chiropractors. This case has beentransferred to the MDL docket and is now assigned to JudgeMoreno in Miami. This case has been stayed as a tag-along caseto the MDL proceedings.

On October 17, 2003, in a case titled "Jeffrey Solomon, D.C., etal., v. Cigna, et al.," several chiropractors and a podiatrist,along with chiropractic and podiatric associations, filed suitin federal Court in Miami, Florida, against ten managed carecorporations, including the Company. The suit alleges that thecompanies violated RICO and challenges many of the samepractices as other suits in the MDL. This case has beentransferred to the MDL docket and is now assigned to JudgeMoreno in Miami. This case has been stayed as a tag-along caseto the MDL proceedings.

On November 4, 2003, in a case titled "Jeffrey Solomon, D.C., etal., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al.," severalchiropractors, podiatrists, a psychologist and a physicaltherapist, along with their professional corporations and tradeassociations, filed suit in federal Court in Miami, Floridaagainst the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Blue Crossand Blue Shield plans across the country, including the Company.The suit alleges that the BCBS Association and the BCBS Plansviolated RICO and challenges many of the same practices as othersuits in the MDL. This case has been transferred to the MDLdocket and is now assigned to Judge Moreno. This case is in theearly stages of the pleadings.

On February 23, 2004, in a case titled "Richard Freiberg, etal., v. United Healthcare, Inc., et al.," an acupuncturist andan association promoting acupuncture, filed suit in federalCourt in Miami, Florida against ten managed care corporations,including the Company. The complaint purports to be a classaction filed on behalf of all non-doctor health care providers,and alleges that the companies involved violated RICO, andchallenges many of the same practices as other suits in the MDLproceedings. This case has been stayed as a tag-along case inthe MDL proceedings.

ANTHEM INC.: OH, KY Units Seek Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuits--------------------------------------------------------------Anthem, Inc.'s primary Ohio subsidiary and primary Kentuckysubsidiary were sued on June 27, 2002, in their respective stateCourts, by the Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati, as well asindividual physicians, and purport to be class action suitsbrought on behalf of all physicians practicing in the greaterCincinnati area and in the Northern Kentucky area, respectively.In addition to the Anthem subsidiaries, both suits name Aetna,United Healthcare and Humana as defendants.

The first suit, captioned "Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati andLuis Pagani, M.D. v. Aetna Health, Inc., Humana Health Plan ofOhio, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and United HealthCare of Ohio, Inc., No. A02004947," was filed on June 27, 2002in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Both suits allege the four companies acted in combination andcollusion with one another to reduce the reimbursement ratespaid to physicians in the area. The suits allege that as adirect result of the defendants' alleged anti-competitiveactions, health care in the area has suffered, namely that:

(1) there are fewer hospitals;

(2) physicians are rapidly leaving the area;

(3) medical practices are unable to hire new physicians; and,

(4) from the perspective of the public, the availability of health care has been significantly reduced.

Each suit alleges that these actions violate the respectivestate's antitrust and unfair competition laws, and each suitseeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys'fees, and injunctive relief to prevent the alleged anti-competitive behavior against the class in the future.

Motions to dismiss or to send the cases to binding arbitration,per the provider contracts, were filed in both Courts. The OhioCourt overruled the motions on January 21, 2003 and the KentuckyCourt overruled the motions on February 19, 2003. Defendantshave appealed both rulings. The Ohio appeal was heard onSeptember 23, 2003. The Ohio appellate Court affirmed the trialCourt's ruling on November 21, 2003.

On January 2, 2004, Anthem filed a motion seeking adiscretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Courtaccepted the case for review on April 13, 2004. Briefing iscomplete in the Ohio Supreme Court and the Court has not set adate for oral argument.

In the Kentucky case, oral argument was heard on August 11,2004, before the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed amotion for class certification, which was heard and rejected bythe trial Court on July 24, 2003. Plaintiffs filed a renewedmotion for class certification, which was heard and rejected onOctober 24, 2003.

ANTHEM INSURANCE: Continues To Face Consumer Lawsuit in IN Court----------------------------------------------------------------Anthem Insurance and two of its Indiana affiliates continue toface a lawsuit currently pending in Indiana state Court, styled"Dr. William Lewis, et al. v. Associated Medical Networks, Ltd.,et al."

The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of LakeCounty, Indiana. The plaintiffs are three related health careproviders. The health care providers assert that the Companyfailed to honor contractual assignments of health insurancebenefits and violated equitable liens held by the health careproviders by not paying directly to them the health insurancebenefits for medical treatment rendered to patients who hadinsurance with the Company.

The Company paid its customers' claims for the health careproviders' services by sending payments to its customers ascalled for by their insurance policies, and the health careproviders assert that the patients failed to use the insurancebenefits to pay for the health care providers' services. Theplaintiffs filed the case as a class action on behalf ofsimilarly situated health care providers and seek compensatorydamages in unspecified amounts for the insurance benefits notpaid to the class members, plus prejudgment interest.

The case was transferred to the Superior Court of Marion County,Indiana, where it is pending. On December 3, 2001, the Courtentered summary judgment for the Company on the health careproviders' equitable lien claims. The Court also enteredsummary judgment for the Company on the health care providers'contractual assignments claims to the extent that the healthcare providers do not hold effective assignments of insurancebenefits from patients. On the same date, the Court certifiedthe case as a class action.

As limited by the summary judgment order, the class consists ofhealth care providers in Indiana who:

(1) were not in one of the Company's networks,

(2) did not receive direct payment from the Company for services rendered to a patient covered by one of the Company's insurance policies that is not subject to ERISA,

(3) were not paid by the patient (or were otherwise damaged by the Company's payment to its customer instead of to the health care provider), and

(4) had an effective assignment of insurance benefits from the patient.

The Company filed a motion seeking an interlocutory appeal ofthe class certification order in the Indiana Court of Appeals.On May 20, 2002 the Indiana Court of Appeals granted theCompany's motion seeking an interlocutory appeal of the classcertification order. In February 2003, the Indiana Court ofAppeals affirmed the trial Court's class certification. TheCompany filed a petition for the transfer to the Indiana SupremeCourt in March 2003. The petition for transfer was argued onOctober 2, 2003, and the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transferin an order dated October 2, 2003.

The SEC alleged in its complaint that four of the Company'sprincipals, namely John Barry, Thomas Daniels, John Irwin andMark Miszkiewicz, carried out a fraudulent scheme that involvedmisrepresenting and manipulating the procedures for valuing thehedge fund in 2002.

Under the settlement, the $4.4 million - $2 million in fines and$2.4 million in restitution and interest - will go to thedefrauded investors. The four principals were barred from forany hedge fund or mutual fund management Company, but Mr.Miszkiewicz was given the right to reapply after four years.The defendants neither admitted to nor denied wrongdoing in thesettlement, but did agree to not violate securities laws in thefuture.

Hedge funds use leveraging and complex trading methods -including short selling and investing in commodities, foreigncurrencies or troubled companies' debt - to make profits withoutregard to the stock market's performance. The SEC says it hasseen an increase in fraud among the 5,700 or so hedge funds inthe United States, and has brought 40 enforcement cases in thelast five years, able to act only after investors have lostmoney, AP reports.

BOEING CO.: Working To Resolve 8 Employment Discrimination Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Boeing Co. faces eight employment discrimination matters filedduring the period of June 1998 through June 2004, in which classcertification is sought or has been granted.

Three matters are pending in the federal Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington in Seattle; one case is pending in thefederal Court for the Central District of California in LosAngeles; one case is pending in state Court in California; onecase is pending in the federal Court in St. Louis, Missouri; onecase is pending in the federal Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and thefinal case is pending in the federal Court in Wichita, Kansas.

The lawsuits seek various forms of relief including front andback pay, overtime, injunctive relief and punitive damages. Thelawsuits are in varying stages of litigation.

One case in Seattle alleging discrimination based on nationalorigin (Asian) resulted in a verdict for us following trial.One case in Seattle alleging discrimination based on gender hasbeen settled. Three cases - one in Los Angeles, one inMissouri, and one in Kansas, all alleging gender discrimination- have resulted in denials of class certification. The casein Oklahoma, also alleging gender discrimination, resulted inthe granting of class action status, but the Company will seekto overturn that decision. The other two cases - a second casealleging discrimination based on gender in California, this onein state Court, and a case alleging discrimination based on race(African-American) in federal Court in Seattle - are in earlierstages of litigation. Class certification in the Seattle casewill be decided in the fourth quarter of 2004.

According to a group of Ontario police officers in July 1996they were being videotaped while undressing in a locker room.They further stated that a police sergeant had installed thevideo surveillance camera in the police building and was onlydiscovered when they were moving into a new headquarters. Theofficers contend that its installation and operation withouttheir knowledge is not only a violation of their rights, butalso against the law. When the officers found out about thevideotape they had asked for an investigation by the citymanager, which would later reveal that the camera was installedto see who had stolen a flashlight. About 125 officers can beclearly identified on the videotape.

The officers decided to file the lawsuit after arriving to theconclusion that the investigation was basically a cover up andnobody will be disciplined and the city did not feel anyone'srights were violated and that the matter was closed.

ACLU Attorney Peter Eliasberg, who filed the suit on behalf ofthe officers stated, "Every American has a basic right toprivacy. Not to be not photographed, peeped at, looked atthrough a hidden mirror while they are doing something basic andprivate as changing in a locker room. This is a grievousviolation of the law by those that should be held to the higheststandards."

The angered officers stated that they basically wantaccountability and feel that it had happened at the direction ofthe former Chief of Police.

The settlement would allow the diocese to avoid bankruptcy, andaverts a potentially embarrassing series of trials over thechurch's handling of abuse claims dating back 50 years or so.The diocese had earlier warned that it might file forbankruptcy, following the steps taken by dioceses in Tucson,Arizona, and Portland, Oregon.

"This has been a tragic time for our church," Bishop WilliamFranklin said, according to AP. "It is my prayer that truehealing may now begin in the Diocese of Davenport."

About 13,000 residential customers of the former CinergyResources, a non-regulated unit of Cinergy, will share in a $2.5million settlement of a breach-of-contract suit brought inFebruary 2001.

The suit was filed against Cinergy and The Energy Cooperative(TEC), a unit of Licking Rural Electrification Inc., whichacquired Cinergy Resources in January 2000. The suit had statedthat all the customers in the class had one- or two-yearagreements with Cinergy Resources to provide natural gas totheir homes at a fixed price of 32 cents per hundred cubic feetplus sales tax. But in the wake of extremely cold weather inlate 2000, natural gas prices tripled, and TEC began terminatingcustomers it acquired from Cinergy.

According to Gregory Berberich, lawyer for Brad Vigran, acustomer in Symmes Township who filed the initial lawsuit, bothCinergy and TEC were liable since customers relied onrepresentations that Cinergy, as their home utility, would standbehind the supply agreements.

Mr. Vigran's initial suit was combined with several others filedby other consumers into a single-class action in Hamilton CountyCommon Pleas Court.

Under the settlement members of the class can either opt for thelump-sum settlement of about $104 or collect the full amountthey paid over their contract price if they can providedocumentation. The settlement funds though wouldn't come out ofCinergy's rate base but fromb the settlement of a separatelawsuit between Cinergy and TEC. In addition to the settlement,TEC agreed to pay for the claims administrator.

The settlement though is still subject to a fairness hearing inHamilton County Common Pleas Court slated for either lateDecember or early January.

DELL COMPUTERS: CA Suit Alleges Fraud in Sale Of Plasma Monitors----------------------------------------------------------------On the eve of a November roll out of its new line of Dell 42"Plasma TVs, attorneys for Dell Computers are quietly dealingwith a class action lawsuit, entitled Crispino v. Dell, Inc.,(Superior Court of California, County of Riverside - IndioBranch Case No. INC 043 487), alleging Dell duped consumersacross the nation into believing they were purchasing a "PlasmaTV" when they made purchases from their mail order catalog.

Unlike the new line of Plasma TVs being offered by Dell, theseproducts did not have the required television tuners or speakersto function as "televisions" and were described as "monitors" or"displays" by their manufacturers while Dell advertised them as"TVs".

"It is outrageous that Dell can enter this market in good faithhaving left untold numbers of consumers holding the bag withdeceptively sold products. What Dell has done is the roughequivalent of advertising the sale of a car and then shipping itwithout an engine," said lead attorney Ricardo A. Torres II."Dell needs to account for its past behavior before it entersthe homes of U.S. consumers with any more plasma televisionproducts," added co-counsel Nick Pacheco.

Beginning in July 2002, twelve purported shareholder classaction lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities lawshave been filed against the Company and several of its formerofficers. Eleven of these lawsuits are now consolidated infederal Court in Houston before a single judge. The twelfthlawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, wasdismissed in light of similar claims being asserted in theconsolidated suits in Houston. The lawsuits generally challengethe accuracy or completeness of press releases and other publicstatements made during 2001 and 2002.

Two shareholder derivative actions have also been filed whichgenerally allege the same claims as those made in theconsolidated shareholder class action lawsuits. One, whichwas filed in federal Court in Houston in August 2002, has beenconsolidated with the shareholder class actions pending inHouston, and has been stayed. The second shareholder derivativelawsuit, filed in Delaware State Court in October 2002,generally alleges the same claims as those made in theconsolidated shareholder class action lawsuit and also has beenstayed.

Two other shareholder derivative lawsuits are now consolidatedin state Court in Houston. Both generally allege thatmanipulation of California gas supply and gas prices exposed theCompany to claims of antitrust conspiracy, FERC penalties anderosion of share value.

Beginning in February 2004, seventeen purported shareholderclass action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securitieslaws were filed against the Company and several individuals infederal Court in Houston. The lawsuits generally allege thatthe Company's reporting of natural gas and oil reserves wasmaterially false and misleading. Each of these lawsuitsrecently has been consolidated into the shareholder lawsuitspending in Texas. An amended complaint in this consolidatedsecurities lawsuit was filed on July 2, 2004.

In September 2004, a new derivative lawsuit was filed in federalCourt in Houston against certain of El Paso's current and formerdirectors and officers. The claims in this new derivativelawsuit are for the most part the same claims made in the July2004 consolidated amended complaint in the securities lawsuit.The one distinction is that the new derivative lawsuit includesa claim for compensation disgorgement under Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 against certain of the individually named defendants.

FABI CONSTRUCTION: Depositions Begin in Lawsuit Over Accident-------------------------------------------------------------Depositions that will determine who's hurt, how badly are theyhurt, and the future medical needs for pain and suffering havebegun in the class-action lawsuit filed by survivors andfamilies of workers killed and injured in the October 30, 2003collapse of the Tropicana parking garage, which killed four andinjured 20, according to Robert Mongeluzzi, a lead attorney forthe plaintiffs, the Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

Paul D'Amato, another lead attorney for the plaintiffs alsostated that Superior Court Judge William Todd III has begundirecting the victims' attorneys to supply all medical andhospital records to the defense with the goal of reaching anearly resolution on some of the claims.

Though not mentioning any monetary figure, the suit claims thatthe casino hotel, its parent, the general contractor and othercompanies failed to adequately reinforce floors to walls withsteel, failed to maintain enough shoring or bracing until theconcrete hardened, and relied on inadequate inspections.

Eighty-eight consumers complained to AG Nixon about problemswith Galez Towing; some were hit with bills for towing orstorage of more than $600. In addition, AG Nixon's suit statesGalez Towing sold vehicles it towed without having a valid titleto the vehicles - an illegal practice in Missouri. "This towoperator has caused unbelievable headaches and hassles for toomany people. He needs to be out of the towing business forgood," AG Nixon said in a press release.

In the lawsuit filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court, AG Nixonasks the Court to permanently bar Bruce Gales from operating atowing and storage business; pay restitution to consumers; andpay a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation of the MissouriMerchandising Practices Act.

Galez Towing provides towing services to cities in St. LouisCounty including Wellston, Moline Acres, Pagedale and Pine Lawn.Vehicles are towed to the Galez Towing lot in Wellston. WhileGalez publishes rates for various services, several consumerswere surprised to discover there is a charge of $100 to simplyretrieve personal items from their towed vehicle.

The suit also says Galez Towing charges far more than other towoperators in the area and customers do not receive an itemizedor detailed receipt of the towing and storage charges.

In addition to barring Gales from disposing of any propertywithout prior authorization from the Court, the temporaryrestraining order issued by Judge Bernhardt Drumm Jr. alsoprohibits the defendants from:

(1) Perpetrating unlawful and unfair acts and practices;

(2) Charging towing and storage fees in excess of those charged by other tow companies in the St. Louis area or charging consumers for storage exceeding the actual numbers of hours the vehicle is stored;

(3) Selling vehicles to Missouri consumers without a valid title to the sale vehicle

A hearing on Nixon's request for preliminary and permanentinjunctions is scheduled for November 9, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.

At a press conference in Dusseldorf, Germany, DSW head UlrichHocker stated that investors have until March 4 to joinCitigroup Inc.'s $2.65 billion settlement of the bank's WorldComclaims, since according to him, the number of German investorseligible to join could be more than 250,000. He also reiterates,"Everyone who doesn't join gives away money. The only financialrisks involved are the stamps for a letter to the U.S."

Mr. Hocker also pointed out that though Germany lacks thelegislation to enforce comparable damages awards in financialfiascos at companies such as EM.TV & Merchandising AG, Courts inthe U.S. in some cases allow international investors to join thesuits.

DSW points out that it would be very beneficial for Germaninvestors to join, since Citigroup's settlement will bedistributed to shareholders who bought the shares between April1999 and June 2002 and may compensate the damage by as much as50 percent. They also pointed out that in the U.S., there arecurrently about 8,000 class-action lawsuits pending, including2,800 shareholder lawsuits involving German companies such asDaimlerChrysler AG and Infineon Technologies AG.

MAYTAG CORPORATION: Settles Consumer Suit Over Defective Washers----------------------------------------------------------------As part of a class action settlement, Maytag Corporation agreedto reimburse owners of Neptune front-loading washer for out-of-pocket repair costs, compensate people who replaced theirNeptune with another washer with up to $500, or issue a voucherfor $200 to $1,000 toward the purchase of a new Neptune TopLoader, the consumerreports.org reports.

On September 10, 2004, Maytag announced that it had agreed tosettle the suit. A Nov. 22, 2004 Court date has been set forapproval of the settlement by the Circuit Court for the 20thJudicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois.

Those machines typically sell for $900 to $1,300, according toMaytag. The voucher would be issued only if Maytag could not fixan existing problem, and the actual dollar value of the voucherwould be prorated according to the age of the machine. Theagreement covers any Neptune front-loaders bought from April 1,1997, to Aug. 9, 2004.

Aside from obvious trouble signs--mold, mildew, or odor--thesettlement covers machines that experience "motor control andcircuit board related failure," a condition that prevents thewasher from tumbling or causing it to stop in the middle of thespin cycle. It also covers problems related to the door latch orwax motor, a component that determines when the latch locks andunlocks during a cycle and that stops the door from locking andthe washer from advancing to the spin cycle.

Lynne Dragomier, Maytag's senior director of corporatecommunications, said that most of the problematic washers weremanufactured before March 2000. She said that the Company agreedto compensate owners of machines made through August 2004 "toput the risk totally behind us as well as not confuse theconsumer." However, she would not provide figures on the numberof Neptune front-loaders sold to date or estimate how many unitsmight be affected.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: To Adopt Reforms, Works To Settle NY AG Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Beleaguered insurance brokerage Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.is adopting "significant reforms" to its business operations,after facing a probe by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzeron its incentive fees, the Associated Press reports.

On Monday, the brokerage firm announced that it had accepted theresignation of its chairman and chief executive Jeffrey W.Greenberg. The step is possibly aimed to facilitate asettlement of the charges filed by Atty. Gen. Spitzer againstthe Company on October 14. AG Spitzer alleged that that theincentive fees were "kickbacks" and said they were a factor inbusinesses being forced to pay more than necessary for propertyand casualty insurance. He also accused Marsh & McLennan ofbid-rigging and price fixing and said he wouldn't deal with thecurrent management, which precipitated Greenberg's ouster.

Mr. Greenberg will be replaced by Michael Cherkasky, 54, who wasrecently named head of Marsh Inc., the Company's risk andinsurance services unit. He was formerly chief executive ofMarsh Kroll, the Marsh & McLennan risk consulting subsidiary.

The insurance brokerage seeks to initiate the reforms by January1. Among the significant measures is the elimination of itscontroversial incentive fees. Contingent commissions - alsoknown as marketing service agreements or placement serviceagreements - are fees paid to brokers by insurance companies inexchange for getting more business.

In its announcement, the firm said the changes in its Marsh Inc.unit "will ensure that the best interests of its clients areserved and that every transaction is executed in accordance withthe highest professional and ethical standards," according toAP. "Marsh has permanently eliminated the practice of receivingany form of contingent compensation from insurers," theannouncement said.

The Company also said it was delaying the announcement of itsthird-quarter earnings to November 9. They had been scheduledfor release on Wednesday. No reason was given for the change,AP reports.

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Cherkasky said thatMarsh & McLennan also was centralizing its insurance placementprocess to give the Company "the ability to get the best dealfor our clients" and to create a system that can be easilyaudited. He said he believed that moving quickly to adoptreforms will "give us competitive advantage" in the marketplace.He also revealed that the Company has taken action againstseveral Marsh & McLennan employees linked to the Spitzer probe.

Marsh & McLennan said in its announcement that "all revenuestreams will be 100 percent transparent to clients." It said itwould outline for the clients all fees, retail commissions,wholesale commissions and premium finance compensation. Itadded that the Company "will insist that insurance companiesshow commission rates on all policies," AP reports.

After the announcement of Mr. Greenberg's ouster, AG Spitzersaid the board's action "permits Marsh and this office to moveforward toward a civil resolution of our lawsuit." He addedthat any criminal action would not be against the Company butagainst individuals.

Despite the promised reforms, Moody's Investors Service onTuesday downgraded Marsh & McLennan's debt by two notches, toBaa2 from A3. It said the downgrade reflected concern aboutfuture earnings, the cost of re-engineering its business modeland uncertainty over the pending litigation. Both Standard &Poor's and Fitch Ratings repeated that they have the Company'sdebt on "negative watch" for possible further downgrades, APreports.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: AG Denies $500M Settlement Figure For Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer the $500 million figuretouted by The Wall Street Journal for the settlement of theattorney general's charges against Marsh & McLennan Companies,Inc., the nation's largest insurance broker, the AssociatedPress reports.

On October 14, AG Spitzer filed a civil suit against the firm,alleging it engaged in price fixing and bid rigging, over itsso-called contingent commissions. Insurance companies paidMarsh & McLennan these commissions in exchange for steering morebusiness their way. AG Spitzer called the fees "kickbacks." Heasserted that the illegal processes forced businesses to paymore than necessary for property and casualty insurance.

The Company has shown an eagerness to settle the case, as itstock price plummeted after the announcement. Earlier thisweek, the Company announced that it had accepted the resignationof chairman and chief executive, Jeffrey W. Greenberg. TheCompany on Monday named Michael G. Cherkasky, the former head ofKroll risk consultancy, to lead the Company. The move has beenseen as a bid to reach settlement of the charges.

Citing unnamed sources, the Wall Street Journal reportedThursday that $500 million was the minimum for any settlement ofthe suit, and that the settlement was about two weeks away. Thetotal cost of the case including class action suits and otherprivate litigation recently filed could top well over $1billion, some of which could be covered by insurance, thenewspaper reported. At least seven federal lawsuits have beenfiled as of Wednesday, and a California attorney has filed alawsuit in state Court.

However, Atty. General Spitzer denied that a figure had beenset. The price for settling state charges of collusion and bidrigging by the nation's largest insurance broker could be "farhigher" than $500 million, AG Eliot Spitzer said, according toAP.

"The number I saw in the paper is not one that I have heard," AGSpitzer told The Associated Press after speaking to the FederalLaw Enforcement Foundation in Manhattan. "There has been nodiscussion about a number. It is very premature."

"We will do the calculation and it could be far higher than the$500 million," AG Spitzer said. "Anybody who says $500 millionas some kind of cap is going to be miscalculating."

A Marsh spokesman didn't respond to a request for commentThursday, AP reports.

MAYTAG CORPORATION: Settles Consumer Suit Over Defective Washers----------------------------------------------------------------As part of a class action settlement, Maytag Corporation agreedto reimburse owners of Neptune front-loading washer for out-of-pocket repair costs, compensate people who replaced theirNeptune with another washer with up to $500, or issue a voucherfor $200 to $1,000 toward the purchase of a new Neptune TopLoader, the consumerreports.org reports.

On September 10, 2004, Maytag announced that it had agreed tosettle the suit. A Nov. 22, 2004 Court date has been set forapproval of the settlement by the Circuit Court for the 20thJudicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois.

Those machines typically sell for $900 to $1,300, according toMaytag. The voucher would be issued only if Maytag could not fixan existing problem, and the actual dollar value of the voucherwould be prorated according to the age of the machine. Theagreement covers any Neptune front-loaders bought from April 1,1997, to Aug. 9, 2004.

Aside from obvious trouble signs--mold, mildew, or odor--thesettlement covers machines that experience "motor control andcircuit board related failure," a condition that prevents thewasher from tumbling or causing it to stop in the middle of thespin cycle. It also covers problems related to the door latch orwax motor, a component that determines when the latch locks andunlocks during a cycle and that stops the door from locking andthe washer from advancing to the spin cycle.

Lynne Dragomier, Maytag's senior director of corporatecommunications, said that most of the problematic washers weremanufactured before March 2000. She said that the Company agreedto compensate owners of machines made through August 2004 "toput the risk totally behind us as well as not confuse theconsumer." However, she would not provide figures on the numberof Neptune front-loaders sold to date or estimate how many unitsmight be affected.

The coalition (represented by lead plaintiff The Coalition for aLevel Playing Field, L.L.C.) claims that the manufacturers areselling auto parts (including accessories such as plugs,filters, motor oils) to AutoZone, Advance Auto, Wal-Mart andSam's Club at substantially lower per-unit prices than chargedto the plaintiff warehouse distributors, and that the prices tothe favored purchasers are lower than the manufacturers' directcosts, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act as well as theSherman Antitrust Act.

Plaintiffs claim that they are unable to compete because of theprice discrimination, and will be driven out of business as tenthousand others have already by driven out, unless thediscriminatory practices are stopped.

In what may be a first, the plaintiffs claim that the defendantauto parts manufacturers have failed to comply with therequirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance statute,which became effective in September, 2003, by failing to reportin their SEC filings that they are selling below cost to theirlargest customers, and by not having in place any system todisclose the existence of such below-cost sales practices.

The retailer plaintiffs are suing the manufacturers for failingto provide advertising and promotional programs comparable tothe programs they provide to the retailer defendants, as well asfor injunctive relief requiring the manufacturers to create anduse a price list instead of negotiating different terms with themajor-retailer defendants.

The warehouse distributors are suing the competing retailerdefendants for price discrimination, and for similar injunctiverelief.

Also, the plaintiffs are suing AutoZone and variousmanufacturers to enjoin sales being made to AutoZone on a "payon scan" or "POS" basis, under which AutoZone received a refundfrom the participating manufacturer for inventory previouslybought by AutoZone (and not resold), and only pays themanufacturer for inventory as it is sold to AutoZone'scustomers, within 90 days after the AutoZone sale is made (and"scanned").

The plaintiffs allege POS enables AutoZone to stock slow-movingparts without any investment, whereas plaintiffs are required bythe same manufacturers to pay for such parts within 30 days, orbe cut off from further purchases. POS will force the plaintiffsout of business, according to allegations in the complaint.

Also, the plaintiffs are suing Wal-Mart and Sam's Club forimposing costs of development of Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) technology and chips upon the defendant auto-partsmanufacturers without the manufacturers offering any programs toplaintiffs for development of RFID capabilities.

The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart has imposed a costs of anestimated $50 billion on the 21,000 suppliers to Wal-Mart (anaverage cost of $2,380,952 per supplier), which amounts to anunlawful rebate or reduction of the price at which Wal-Mart ispurchasing its goods from such suppliers.

The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, AutoZone andAdvance Auto are purchasing monopolists (actually,"monopsonists") with the power to dictate the price at whichthey buy auto parts, and that they are exercising such monopsonypower to coerce lower prices when purchasing their inventoryrequirements, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman AntitrustAct.

Federal Mogul, the leading auto-parts manufacturer for theaftermarket, was not sued because it is under the protection ofthe Bankruptcy Court, but the plaintiffs note in their complaintthat they plan to sue Federal Mogul when it emerges frombankruptcy in January 2005, if its discriminatory pricingpractices have not changed.

For more details, contact Attorney Carl E. Person by Phone:212-307-4444 by E-mail: carlpers@ix.netcom.com

PACER INTERNATIONAL: New Trial Set in CA Truck Drivers Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------A new trial has been set for the remaining issue in the classaction filed against two of Pacer International, Inc.'ssubsidiaries engaged in the local cartage and harbor drayageoperations, namely Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which wassubsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and IntermodalContainer Service, Inc.

The suit, filed in July 1997 in the State of California, LosAngeles Superior Court, Central District, (the Albillo case),alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfairbusiness practices, conversion and money had and received inconnection with monies (including insurance premium costs)allegedly wrongfully deducted from truck drivers' earnings.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro TemporeSubmission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which theywaived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certifiedclass, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and amaximum judgment of $1.75 million. In August 2000, the trialCourt ruled in the Company's favor on all issues except one,namely that in 1998 the Company's subsidiaries failed to issueto the owner-operators new certificates of insurance disclosinga change in the Company's subsidiaries' liability insuranceretention amount, and ordered that restitution of $488,978 bepaid for this omission.

Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all issues except one (theindependent contractor status of the drivers), and the Company'ssubsidiaries appealed the insurance retention disclosure issue.In December 2003, the appellate Court affirmed the trial Court'sdecision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial Court'sdecision that the owner-operators could be charged for theworkers compensation insurance coverage that they elected toobtain through the Company's subsidiaries, and remanded back tothe trial Court the question of whether the collection ofworkers compensation insurance charges from the owner-operatorsviolated California's Business and Professions Code and, if so,to determine an appropriate remedy.

The Company sought review at the California Supreme Court ofthis workers compensation issue, and the plaintiffs soughtreview only of whether the Company's subsidiaries' providinginsurance for the owner-operators constituted engaging in theinsurance business without a license under California law. InMarch 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied both parties'petitions for appeal, thus ending all further appellate review.

As a result, the only remaining issue is whether the Company'ssubsidiaries' collection of workers compensation insurancecharges from the owner-operators violated California's Businessand Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if any,should be paid to the owner-operator class. The schedule forthis new trial, which will be litigated in the same trial Courtthat heard the original case, has recently been set, and theCourt has asked the parties to submit their evidence in the formof briefs, affidavits and other documents as opposed toconvening a full evidentiary trial. The Company currentlyexpects that this briefing will be completed and that the Courtwill issue its holding sometime in the first half of 2005, itstated in a regulatory filing.

The same law firm prosecuting the Albillo case has filed aseparate class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalfof a putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" classaction) who are purportedly not included in the Albillo class.The claims in the Renteria case, which is being stayed pendingfull and final disposition of the remaining issue in Albillo>,mirror those in Albillo>, specifically, that the Company'ssubsidiaries' providing insurance for their owner-operatorsconstitutes engaging in the insurance business without a licensein violation of California law and that charging the putativeclass of owner-operators in Renteria for workers compensationinsurance that they elected to obtain through the Company'ssubsidiaries violated California's Business and ProfessionsCode.

The Company believes that the final disposition of the insuranceissue in Albillo in the Company's favor precludes the plaintiffsfrom re-litigating this issue in Renteria, the Company said in adisclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based onthe final ruling in Albillo on the insurance issue and otherinformation presently available, and in light of the Company'slegal and other defenses on the insurance issue and the workerscompensation related claim, management does not expect theselegal proceedings to have a material adverse impact on theCompany's consolidated financial position, results of operationsor liquidity.

PAYPAL INC.: CA Court Approves Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia granted conditional final approval to the settlementof the consolidated class action filed against PayPal, Inc.,alleging violations of California consumer laws.

In February 2002, PayPal was sued in California state Court (No.CV-805433) in a purported class action alleging that itsrestriction of customer accounts and failure to promptlyunrestrict legitimate accounts violates California stateconsumer protection laws and is an unfair business practice anda breach of PayPal's User Agreement. This action was re-filedwith a different named plaintiff in June 2002 (No. CV-808441),and a related action was also filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California in June 2002 (No.C-02-2777).

In March 2002, PayPal was sued in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of California (No. C-02-1227) in apurported class action alleging that its restrictions ofcustomer accounts and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimateaccounts violates federal and state consumer protection andunfair business practice laws.

The two federal Court actions were consolidated into a singlecase, and the state Court action was stayed pending developmentsin the federal case. On June 14, 2004, the parties announcedthat they had reached a proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, certain PayPalaccount holders will be eligible to receive payment from asettlement fund in accordance with the settlement's plan ofallocation. The settlement fund, which will be funded byPayPal, will total $9.25 million, less administrative costsand any amount awarded to plaintiffs' counsel by the Court. Inthe proposed settlement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any ofthe allegations in the case are true. The proposed settlementhas been preliminarily approved by the federal Court but remainssubject to final Court approval.

On October 13, 2004, the federal Court gave conditional finalapproval to the settlement, subject to modification of thewording of the release of claims by the class members. PayPalexpects this modification to be completed without any materialimpact. If the modification is completed and the proposedsettlement is approved by the federal Court, all claims of theclass in both the federal and state actions will be dismissed.Any person that timely filed an objection to the settlementwould have the right to appeal the Court's order granting finalapproval.

POZEN INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in NC Court----------------------------------------------------------------Pozen, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors andofficers face five purported securities class action lawsuitsfiled in the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of North Carolina. The lawsuits are brought on behalfof a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities,and seek unspecified damages.

As is typical in this type of litigation, these securities classaction lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations, andadditional lawsuits containing substantially similar allegationsmay be filed in the future, the Company said in a regulatoryfiling. These actions have been consolidated for pre-trialpurposes and any other similar federal actions that may be filedwill also be consolidated with these actions for pre-trialpurposes. The lawsuits allege claims based on purportedlymisleading statements concerning the Company's productcandidates MT 100 and MT 300.

Two derivative actions have also been filed against certain ofthe Company's current and former directors and officers in theSuperior Court for the County of Orange in the State of NorthCarolina. These actions allege violations of state law,including breaches of fiduciary duties and insider sales,relating to the same allegedly misleading statements concerningour product candidates MT 100 and MT 300 that are referenced inthe various purported class action lawsuits.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Continues To Face Fraud Suits Over Memberships--------------------------------------------------------------Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc., certain of its officers,employees, sales associates and other defendants continue toface several lawsuits filed in various Alabama and Mississippistate Courts by current or former members seeking actual andpunitive damages for alleged breach of contract, fraud andvarious other claims in connection with the sale of Memberships.

During 2003, there were at one time as many as 30 separatelawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama. Asof October 26, 2004, as a result of dismissals, summaryjudgments, or settlements for nominal amounts, the Company wasaware of approximately 17 separate lawsuits involvingapproximately 64 plaintiffs that have been filed in multiplecounties in Alabama.

As of October 26, 2004, the Company was aware of 17 separatelawsuits involving approximately 430 plaintiffs in multiplecounties in Mississippi. Certain of the Mississippi lawsuitsalso name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippias a defendant. Proceedings in several of the eleven caseswhich name the Company's provider attorney as a defendant hadbeen stayed pending the Mississippi Supreme Court's ruling onthe Pre-Paid defendants' appeal of a trial Court's granting of apartial summary judgment that the action is not required to besubmitted to arbitration.

On April 1, 2004, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed thetrial Court's partial summary judgment that arbitration shouldnot be had in one of the cases on appeal. The Company asked theMississippi Supreme Court to rehear that issue but that motionwas denied on June 3, 2004 and Pre-Paid sought certiorari onthat issue with the United States Supreme Court on September 1and 8, 2004. At this time, Pre-Paid is unable to predictwhether or not the Court will grant certiorari review of theissue.

At least three complaints have been filed by the law firmrepresenting plaintiffs in eleven of the cases on behalf ofcertain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and others with theAttorney General of Mississippi in March 2002, December 2002 andAugust 2003. The Company has responded to the AttorneyGeneral's requests for information with respect to thesecomplaints, and as of October 26, 2004, the Company was notaware of any further actions being taken by the AttorneyGeneral.

In Mississippi, the Company has filed lawsuits in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts ofMississippi in which the Company seeks to compel arbitration ofthe various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Actand the terms of the Company's Membership agreements. One ofthe federal Courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8plaintiffs. These cases are all in various stages oflitigation, including trial settings in Alabama in November2004, and in Mississippi in February 2005, and seek varyingamounts of actual and punitive damages. The first trial inMississippi on these cases resulted in a unanimous jury verdictin the Company's favor, including other named defendants, on allclaims on October 19, 2004. While the amount of Membership feespaid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases is $500,000 orless, certain of the cases seek damages of $90 million.Additional suits of a similar nature have been threatened. Theultimate outcome of any particular case is not determinable.

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referencedAlabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company andcertain of its officers in the District Court of Creek County,Oklahoma on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually anddoing business as Hi-Tech Auto, making similar allegationsrelating to the Company's Memberships and seeking unspecifieddamages on behalf of a "nationwide" class. The Pre-Paiddefendants' preliminary motions in this case were denied, and onJune 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed thetrial Court's denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion tocompel arbitration, finding that the trial Court erred when itdenied Pre-Paid's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to theterms of the valid Membership contracts, and remanded the caseto the trial Court for further proceedings consistent with thatopinion.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court Refuses Certification For Stock Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District ofOklahoma refused to grant class certification to the lawsuitfiled against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. by by CarolineSandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal Corrente, Richard Jarvis andVincent Jefferson. The suit also names certain of the Company'sexecutive officers as defendants.

This action is a putative class action seeking unspecifieddamages filed on behalf of all sales associates of the Companyand alleges that the marketing plan offered by the Companyconstitutes a security under the Securities Act of 1933 andseeks remedies for failure to register the marketing plan as asecurity and for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of theSecurities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934in connection with representations alleged to have been made inconnection with the marketing plan.

The complaint also alleges violations of the Oklahoma SecuritiesAct, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales Act, breach ofcontract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing andunjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma ConsumerProtection Act and negligent supervision. This case is subjectto the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffsand counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002.The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaintand to strike the class action allegations on September 19,2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling onthe motion to dismiss.

On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in partthe Pre-Paid defendants' motion to dismiss. The claims assertedunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the OklahomaSecurities Act were dismissed without prejudice. The motion wasdenied as to the remaining claims. On September 8, 2004, theCourt denied plaintiffs motion for class certification.Plaintiffs have petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appealsfor permission to appeal the class certification ruling, andthat matter has been fully briefed.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court Hears Summary Judgment Motion in Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma has taken Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in thelawsuit filed against it, by Gina Kotwitz, later adding, GeorgeKotwitz, Rick Coker, Richard Starke, Jeff Turnipseed and AaronBouren, on behalf of all sales associates of the Company.

The amended petition seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,with such other damages as the Court deems appropriate, foralleged violations of the Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Codein connection with the Company's commission advances, and seeksinjunctive and declaratory relief regarding the enforcement ofcertain contract provisions with sales associates, including arequest stated in June 2003 for the imposition of a constructivetrust as to earned commissions applied to the reduction of debitbalances and disgorgement of all earned renewal commissionsapplied to the reduction of debit balances.

On September 23, 2003 the Court entered an order dismissing theclass action allegations upon the motion of the plaintiffs. Theorder provides that the action will proceed only on anindividual basis, and that the hearing on plaintiffs' motion forclass certification previously set for February 2004 wascancelled. Oral argument on the Company's motion for summaryjudgment was held on July 2, 2004 and the Court has taken themotion under advisement.

The consent judgment provides for restitution to aggrievedconsumers, a payment to the United Services Organization (USO)for the benefit of troops who have seen active duty in Iraq, anda penalty of $50,000 if the Company does not comply with theterms of the agreement.

"As Attorney General, I take seriously my obligation to protectconsumers," AG Cox said. "I am glad we were able to reach asettlement that will avoid further litigation and providecomplete restitution to consumers. But if Razmataz doesn't liveup to its word, we will be back in Court to demand complianceand stiff penalties."

AG Cox argued that the coins, Kennedy half dollars decoratedwith patriotic images to commemorate the military operation inIraq, were misrepresented as an official product of the U.S.Mint. AG Cox also asserted that the Company had misledconsumers regarding charitable benefits that U.S. soldiers wouldreceive as a result of coin purchases.

Razmataz's websites claimed the Company would match consumers'purchases 100% by donating coins to members of the U.S. militaryin Iraq. However, neither consumers nor any soldier received agenuine U.S. Mint coin commemorating the war effort, as the U.S.Mint did not produce any such coin and no relationship existedbetween Razmataz and the Department of Defense.

The Company agreed to refund money to consumers and tocontribute $1,000 and 180 "Operation Freedom Coins" to the USOfor the benefit of armed forces personnel who have been onactive duty in Iraq. The Company also agreed to refrain fromfalse advertising, charging for coins not delivered, andwithholding money from consumers who cancel orders that are notexpeditiously fulfilled. Razmataz will also comply with a recentfederal law regulating unsolicited commercial email, or "spam."

AG Cox, a former Marine, warned consumers not to let their guarddown when confronted with patriotic appeals. "Consumers shouldcarefully examine all offers appealing to their patriotism,especially in these times of national concern," AG Cox said."We want to do all we can to support our troops, but we must becareful not to fall for con-artists trying to make a quick buckby preying on consumers' public-spirited emotions andsympathies."

Consumers who were unsatisfied with purchases from Razmataz mustfile complaints with the Attorney General's office on or beforeJanuary 5, 2005, in order to qualify for restitution under theterms of the settlement. For more details, contact AttorneyGeneral Mike Cox, Consumer Protection Division, by Mail: P.O.Box 30213, Lansing, MI. 48909 or visit the Attorney General'sWebsite: http://www.michigan.gov/ag.

UNITED STATES: Anti-Spam Alliance Lodges More Suits V. Spammers---------------------------------------------------------------The Anti-Spam Alliance, which is composed of America Online,Microsoft, EarthLink and Yahoo have each filed new lawsuits inU.S. Federal Court against senders of unwanted computer messagesotherwise known as spammers, the CNET News.com reports.

The companies filed suits in the states of Washington, Georgiaand California accusing defendants of violating the federal Can-Spam Act, along with other state and federal laws. The legalaction is the second time the companies have banded together totake on spammers. In March, they collaborated to file theindustry's first major round of lawsuits accusing spammers ofviolating the Can-Spam Law, which went into effect Jan. 1.

According to Randall Boe, executive vice president and generalcounsel of AOL, one of their new lawsuits should be taken noteof, since it's the first to target "spim," unwanted messagesthat are sent through instant messaging programs or chat rooms.So far spim has only affected a small number of users, butexperts believe the problem is growing even though it can beminimized by new enterprise-class IM applications andenhancements in consumer IM software. Mr. Boe also stated thatthe suit is a show of force targeting spimmers and telling themthat the Company is dead serious about shutting down the threatthrough legal avenues as well.

AOL and EarthLink also took aim at spammers peddling controlledsubstances, including Vicodin and other drugs, which are legallysold only by prescription. EarthLink's suit also accused several"John Doe" defendants of sending deceptive e-mails to advertiselow mortgage or loan rates. The Company accused the defendantsof attempting to collect and resell consumers' names and contactinformation, which is illegal.

Meanwhile, Microsoft filed three lawsuits alleging thatdefendants "spoofed" addresses from all four Internet serviceproviders and sent millions of e-mails to users of its Hotmaile-mail service, soliciting herbal growth supplements, mortgageservices and get-rich-quick schemes, all in violation of theCan-Spam law. "Spoofing" is a method of altering a domain nameor e-mail address so that it appears to have come from alegitimate source.

Finally, Yahoo filed a lawsuit against East Coast ExoticsEntertainment Group and Epoth, two adult entertainmentcompanies, for disguising their identities, designing messagesto circumvent spam filters and using sexually explicit subjectlines to send unsolicited, sexually oriented e-mail messages.

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Elevator, Escalator Antitrust Suits--------------------------------------------------------------United Technologies Corporation faces several class actiosnfiled in various federal district Courts in the United States,alleging a worldwide agreement among elevator and escalatormanufacturers to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act.The suit also names Otis Corporation and other elevator andescalator manufacturers.

The plaintiffs purport to represent injured parties worldwidethat have allegedly purchased elevators, escalators, or elevatorand escalator repair services from the Company, Otis, and otherdefendants. These lawsuits will likely be consolidated throughthe Multi-District Litigation procedures available in the UnitedStates. The lawsuits do not specify the amount of damagesclaimed, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Residents To Get Payout From $20M Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Due to a $20 million settlement of a class-action suit, VirginiaElectric and Power Co. (VEPCO) and Dominion Telecom Inc. areobligated to pay local residents, who own or owned propertythrough, which Virginia Power had electric transmission lines inMarch 1998 or thereafter - when those lines were used forcommercial telecommunications purposes, the Fairfax StationConnection reports.

The power lines run through Clifton, Centreville and many otherparts of Fairfax County. A federal Court ruled that VEPCO andDominion Telecom used electric-transmission line easementsunlawfully for commercial telecommunications purposes."They strung fiber optic cable on the towers for the powerlines," said Clifton's Don Ballard. "This violated the easementbecause they made a profit off of it."

The $20 million settlement was reached on July 1 in U.S.District Court in Virginia, but many residents are only nowreceiving notices that money is due them.

Mr. Ballard, however is concerned in the way the settlement hadbeen implemented, due to the fact that others, who are also duemoney from the settlement don't know about it. He furtherstates, "I got a letter from the Virginia Power SettlementCenter, but some of my neighbors, who also own property underthe power lines haven't been notified."

For more details, contact the Virginia Power Settlement Centerin Dallas, Texas by Phone: 214-753-5044 or 1-877-450-9844 orvisit their Web site: http://www.vepcoclassaction.com

WELLCHOICE INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss RICO, Fraud Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------WellChoice, Inc. asked the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss theclass action filed against it and other managed careorganizations, styled "Thomas, et al. v. Empire, et al."

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division against theBlue Cross Blue Shield Association, Empire and substantially allof the other Blue plans in the country. The named plaintiffshave brought this case on their own behalf and also purport tobring it on behalf of similarly situated physicians and seekdamages and injunctive relief to redress their claim of economiclosses which they allege is the result of defendants, on theirown and as part of a common scheme, systemically denying,delaying and diminishing claim payments.

More specifically, plaintiffs allege that the defendants denypayment based upon cost or actuarial criteria rather thanmedical necessity or coverage, improperly downcode and bundleclaims, refuse to recognize modifiers, intentionally delaypayment by pending otherwise payable claims and throughcalculated understaffing, use explanation of benefits, or EOBs,that fraudulently conceal the true nature of what was processedand paid and, finally, by use of capitation agreements whichthey allege are structured to frustrate a provider's ability tomaximize reimbursement under the capitated agreement.

The plaintiffs allege that the co-conspirators include not onlythe named defendants but also other insurance companies, tradeassociations and related entities such as Milliman and Robertson(actuarial firm), McKesson (claims processing software Company),National Committee for Quality Assurance, Health InsuranceAssociation of America, the American Association of Health Plansand the Coalition for Quality Healthcare. In addition toasserting a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief toprevent future damages, plaintiffs assert several causes ofaction based upon civil Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations (RICO) and mail fraud.

The plaintiffs have subsequently amended their complaint, addingseveral medical societies as additional plaintiffs a cause ofaction based upon an assignment of benefits, adding severaladditional defendants including the Company and two of its othersubsidiaries, WellChoice Insurance of New Jersey, Inc. andEmpire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. and dropping their direct RICOclaim, but instead base their RICO claim solely on a conspiracytheory.

In October 2003, the action was transferred to District CourtJudge Federico Moreno, who also presides over "Shane v. Humana,et al.," a class-action lawsuit brought against other insurersand HMOs on behalf of health care providers nationwide. TheThomas case involves allegations similar to those made in theShane action.

In the Shane case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, onSeptember 1, 2004, upheld class certification as to RICO relatedclaims but decertified a class as to state law claims. OnOctober 15, 2004, the Shane defendants filed a petition for awrit of certiorari, seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the11th Circuit decision.

On June 14, 2004, the Court ordered the commencement ofdiscovery. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on October4, 2004, which are pending before the Court. Meanwhile, classcertification discovery is to be concluded by December 31, 2004,by which date plaintiffs are to file their motion for classcertification.

WELLCHOICE INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss RICO, Fraud Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------WellChoice, Inc. asked the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss theclass action filed against them and other managed careorganizations, styled "Solomon, et al. v. Empire, et al."

In November 2003, this putative class action was commencedagainst the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Empire andsubstantially all other Blue plans in the country. This case issimilar to "Thomas, et al. v. Empire, et al," except that thiscase is brought on behalf of certain ancillary providers, suchas podiatrists, psychologists, chiropractors and physicaltherapists.

Like the Thomas plaintiffs, the Solomon plaintiffs allege thatthe defendants, on their own and as part of a common scheme,systematically deny, delay and diminish payments to theseproviders. The plaintiffs' allegations are similar to those setforth in Thomas but also include an allegation that defendantshave subjected plaintiffs claims for reimbursement to stricterscrutiny than claims submitted by medical doctors and doctors ofosteopathy. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and monetarydamages and injunctive relief.

The complaint was subsequently amended to add several newparties, including the Company and two of its othersubsidiaries, WellChoice Insurance of New Jersey, Inc. andEmpire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. By an Order dated January 7,2004, the case was transferred to Judge Moreno, but notconsolidated with the other pending actions. The Court, on itsown initiative, deemed this action a "tag along" action to theShane litigation, and ordered the case closed for statisticalpurposes and placed the matter in a civil suspense file.

On June 14, 2004, the Court ordered the commencement ofdiscovery. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on August27, 2004, which are pending before the Court. Meanwhile, classcertification discovery is to be concluded by December 31, 2004,by which date plaintiffs are to file their motion for classcertification.

The action, numbered 2004 C 6962, is pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,Eastern Division, against defendants Aon, Patrick G. Ryan (CEO),Harvey N. Medvin (CFO until April 2003), and David P. Bolger(CFO since April 2003).

The complaint alleges that defendants' publicly disseminatedClass Period statements were materially false and misleadingbecause, unbeknownst to investors, Aon engaged in an illegalscheme engineered by defendants to steer business to favoredinsurance companies in exchange for lucrative contingentcommissions. In collusion with preferred insurance carriers, Aonroutinely orchestrated illusory bidding competitions in which itwould designate a winner first and then urge other favoredinsurance companies to submit inflated bids with theunderstanding that Aon would make similar favorable arrangementsfor the "losing" bidders in subsequent competitions. Aonpresented clients with the fictitious high quotes from theinsurance companies to create the appearance of a fair biddingcompetition. Thus, the complaint alleges, Aon's Class Periodrepresentations regarding its performance were materially falseand misleading because, among other reasons, they failed todisclose that a material portion of defendants' revenues werederived from illegal bid rigging and kickback schemes that wasinherently unsustainable and which subjected the Company to aserious risk of regulatory penalties, potential criminal andcivil liability, and the loss of goodwill among its clients,thereby compromising the Company's overall financial conditionand prospects for future business.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzerissued a press release, headlined "Investigation RevealsWidespread Corruption in Insurance Industry," announcing hisfiling of an action, in New York state Court, against insurancebroker Marsh & McLennan Cos. and two executives for rigging bidsand collecting fees from insurers for steering business theirway, pursuant to "contingent commission" agreements. The civilcomplaint accuses the defendants of engaging in fraudulentbusiness practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,unjust enrichment and common law fraud. The press releasedescribed wide-ranging fraud and improper conduct within theinsurance industry. In response to this announcement, andwidespread media coverage of the action, which sent shockwavesthroughout the insurance industry, the price of Aon common stockdropped dramatically, falling 16% in one day, from a closingprice of $27.66 per share on October 13, 2004 to a closing priceof $23.18 per share on October 14. On October 15, 2004, The WallStreet Journal reported that Aon was a target of Mr. Spitzer'sprobe, having been served with a subpoena for documents relatedto its contingent commission agreements. Numerous similararticles, highlighting the corruption alleged in Mr. Spitzer'scomplaint, and the fruits of their own investigations, werepublished since then, causing Aon's stock price to declinefurther. On October 22, 2004, SmartMoney reported that Mr.Spitzer's office criticized Aon for "dragging its feet" incomplying with the investigation. Also that day, Aon issued apress release announcing that "it is eliminating its practice ofaccepting contingent commissions from underwriters." Aon's stockclosed at $19.35 on October 22, 2004, 30% below its closingprice prior to the breaking of the scandal.

APOLLO GROUP: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated aclass action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased orotherwise acquired the securities of Apollo Group, Inc.("Apollo") (Nasdaq: APOL) between February 27, 2004 andSeptember 14, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking topursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the"Exchange Act"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action isavailable from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss'website at: http://www.milbergweiss.com

The action, Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA, is pending in theUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona,against defendants Apollo, Todd S. Nelson (CEO, President, andChairman), Kenda B. Gonzales (CFO), and Daniel E. Bachus (ChiefAccounting Officer and Controller). According to the complaint,defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the ExchangeAct, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Apollo, a provider of adult highereducation through its subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix,Inc., Institute for Professional Development ("IPD"), TheCollege for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation, andWestern International University, Inc., reported positivefinancial results in publicly disseminated press releases andfilings with the SEC throughout the Class Period. Apolloattributed these results to strong growth in tuition and othernet revenues primarily from an increase in average full-timeequivalent degree student enrollments. According to thecomplaint, a material portion of Apollo's revenues was derivedfrom federal financial aid programs in which Apollo's studentsparticipated to receive tuition assistance. In connection withits students' receipt of federal financial aid, the Company wassubject to extensive regulation by governmental agencies andlicensing and accrediting bodies. Most importantly, Title IV ofthe Higher Education Act of 1965 (the "HEA"), and certain of theregulations issued thereunder by the Department of Education("DOE"), prohibits institutions which participate in the federalfinancial aid programs from paying commissions, bonuses, orother incentives on the basis of the success of studentrecruitment, admission, or financial aid awards. The Companyacknowledged in its second-quarter 2004 report that its successdepended upon its compliance with Title IV. On February 27,2004, the first day of the Class Period, the Company announcedthe dismissal of a whistleblower lawsuit that alleged that theCompany improperly compensated its student recruiters, andsuggested that there was no merit to the allegations. In theCompany's second- and third-quarter 2004 reports, Apollorevealed that the DOE's Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"),in its audit of IPD and certain client institutions for whichIPD provides management, program development, and studentrecruitment services, found evidence of incentive-basedcompensation of student recruiters by IPD and the clientinstitutions. Defendants assured investors that the audit "willbe resolved without any material effect on its financialposition, results of operations, or cash flows, and without anymaterial change in IPD's business strategy."

On September 7, 2004, the truth began to emerge when the Companyissued a press release stating, without disclosing furtherdetails, that it had resolved the DOE's audit of IPD and TheUniversity of Phoenix. On the same day, after the market closed,Bloomberg published an article entitled "Apollo Group SettlesDepartment of Education Audit," which revealed that the Companyhad reached a settlement with the DOE for $4.4 million inconnection with allegations that IPD had tied the compensationof its student recruiters to enrollment figures. Moreover, thearticle stated that the Company had agreed to pay $9.8 millionin connection with a regulatory investigation into the sameissues at The University of Phoenix. In reaction to this news,the price of Apollo common stock dropped $0.65 per share fromits previous day's closing price of $82.72 to close at $82.07 onSeptember 8, 2004. On September 15, 2004, The Wall StreetJournal published an article reporting the findings of the DOE'sprobe into The University of Phoenix, stating that itssupervisors "improperly lavished money on employees for signingup scores of new students, including those unable to cut it."Moreover, the Journal reported that the Company promised itsstudent recruiters who started at salaries of $26,000 anincrease "to as much as $120,000 if they logged enoughenrollments," and rewarded top performers with all-expense paidtrips, gift certificates, and spa packages. According to theJournal, the DOE investigators also found "'a culture ofduplicity,' with some counselors even forging student signatureson loan documents." In reaction to this news, the price ofApollo common stock declined, falling $1.41, or 1.7%, from itsprevious trading day's closing price to close at $78.68 onSeptember 15, 2004.

AXIS GLOBAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York onbehalf of purchasers of AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. ("AXIS")(NYSE:AXIS) publicly traded securities during the period betweenAugust 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AXIS and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. AXIS is a holding Company that through its subsidiariesprovides a range of insurance and reinsurance products on aworld-wide basis.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsdisseminated materially false and misleading statementsconcerning the Company's results and operations. The true facts,which were known by each of the defendants but concealed fromthe investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements;"

(2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars; and

(3) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue and income was grossly overstated.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzerannounced that he had charged several of the nation's largestinsurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging andpay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. Onthese revelations, the Company's shares fell to $23.36 from$25.89 per share, a drop of 10%.

BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fructer Lodges Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP initiated aclass action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased thepublicly traded securities of Biolase Technology, Inc.("Biolase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLTI) during the periodbetween October 29, 2003 and July 16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California, Southern Division, andalleges that Biolase and certain of its officers and directorsviolated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SecuritiesAct of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading financialstatements, which caused Biolase's shares to trade atartificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Biolase is a medical technology Company that designs,manufactures and markets proprietary dental laser systems thatallow dentists, oral surgeons and other specialists to perform abroad range of common dental procedures, including cosmeticapplications. The complaint alleges that the Company recognizedrevenue in advance of earning it and failed to record adequatereserves for returns, causing Biolase's financial results to beinflated. The complaint further alleges that because of thisinflation, the Company was able to complete a secondary stockoffering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004 at $18.80 pershare.

On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reportedpreliminary results for the second quarter of 2004. Afterrelease of this news, the Company's stock price declined to$8.78 per share on volume of 4.8 million shares. The Company'sChief Financial Officer resigned within two weeks of thisannouncement. As alleged in the complaint, defendants knew thatBiolase was not performing as well as had been represented. Thetruth, which was allegedly known to defendants, but concealedfrom the investing public during the Class Period, was that:

(1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for the product was not increasing at the rates represented by defendants;

(2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's reported earnings were false and misleading;

(3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and

(4) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth forecasted.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasersof Biolase publicly traded securities during the Class Period(the "Class").

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Herman & Mermelstein Lodges FL Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. initiated a classaction complaint in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida charging Lehman Brothers, Inc.,Lehman ABS Corp., Bank of America Securities LLC and J.J.B.Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc., with violations of the FederalSecurities Laws (Securities Act of 1933). The complaint wasfiled on behalf of all purchasers (other than Defendants) whoacquired "Corporate Backed Trust Certificates of GE GlobalInsurance, Series 2003-19, Class A-1" (the "Certificates"),between December 11, 2003 and May 17, 2004.

Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' "repackaging" of debtsecurities issued by GE Global Insurance Holding Corp. ("GEGlobal") for sale to investors. In December, 2003, a trust wascreated (the "Trust") to hold $38 million aggregate principalamount of 7% Notes issued by GE Global (the "GE Global Notes" orthe "Underlying Securities"). The Trust was formed pursuant toTrust Agreement between Lehman ABS, as Depositor, and U.S. BankTrust National Association, as Trustee.

The Underlying Securities were originally issued by GE Global inFebruary, 1996, and are to mature in February, 2026. Theaggregate principal amount of $38 million of the UnderlyingSecurities was purchased by Lehman ABS in the secondary market,and delivered to the Trustee pursuant to the Trust Agreement.

By means of the Trust, the GE Global Notes were repackaged asnew securities, denominated Class A-1 Certificates. The Trustoffered 1,520,000 A-1 Certificates to the public at an interestrate of 6% and a price of $25 per Certificate. Each Certificaterepresented an undivided beneficial interest in the assets ofthe Trust.

The Trust also issued in a private offering Class A-2Certificates, which were interest-only Certificates that did notentitle holders to distributions of principal from the Trust.

The Trust required that its assets be liquidated in the eventthat GE Global were to state in writing that it intendspermanently to cease filing periodic reports required under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (referred to in the Prospectusas an "SEC Reporting Failure").

Although the Prospectus discloses the contingency of an SECReporting Failure, nowhere does the Prospectus discuss ormention the nature and extent of the risk of an SEC ReportingFailure. Other potential adverse events and contingencies, andthe risks associated therewith, are discussed in some detail inthe Prospectus, including those which may from GE Global'sfinancial difficulties or its failure to make payments on theNotes.

Shortly after the initial sale of the Certificates to thepublic, GE reorganized its businesses, as of January 1, 2004,around its "markets and customers," reducing the number of itsreporting segments from 5 to 4.

On March 16, 2004, GE Global issued a press release announcingthat it would cease SEC reporting as a separate entity and de-list the GE Global Notes from the New York Stock Exchange. GEGlobal stated the following reasons for this action:

GE Global is taking the action to simplify and streamline itsreporting. The current number of GE Global's debt holders ofrecord falls below the minimum SEC thresholds required forongoing reporting.

Shortly after GE Global's announcement the Trust was liquidatedresulting in a substantial and immediate loss to the investors.The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus for the Certificatesfailed to accurately disclose the risks associated with theinvestment.

For more details, contact Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. by Phone:1-800-686-9921 or by E-mail: herman@hermanlaw.com

STAR GAS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Connecticut on behalf of all securities purchasersof Star Gas Partners, L.P. (NYSE: SGU) (NYSE: SGH) ("Star" andthe "Partnership") from April 30, 2003 through October 15, 2004inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Star, Irik P. Sevin, and Ami Trauber withviolations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Morespecifically, the complaint alleges that the Partnership failedto disclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(1) that the Partnership was unable to pass costs of rising heating oil prices on to its customers because the Partnership had earlier acquired heating oil at a much lower cost;

(2) that as a result of this, defendants were unable to increase or maintain profit margins in its heating oil segment;

(3) that the Partnership was experiencing massive customer attrition; and

(4) that the Partnership's Petro heating oil division's operational restructuring, undertaken at the beginning of the Class Period, was a complete and utter failure because of delays in the centralization of Star's dispatch system.

On October 18, 2004, Star issued a press release with theheadline: "STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. ANNOUNCES SUSPENSION OFCOMMON UNIT DISTRIBUTION." Therein, the Partnership stated thatit had recently advised its Petro heating oil division banklenders of a substantial expected decline in earnings for thisdivision for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2004,and a further projected decline in earnings for the fiscal yearending September 30, 2005, which would not permit Petro to meetthe borrowing conditions under its working capital line.According to Star, the source of the problem was a combinationof the inability to pass on the full impact of record heatingoil prices to customers, and the effects of unusually highcustomer attrition principally related to its operationalrestructuring undertaken in the past 18 months. Petro wascontinuing to submit borrowing requests under its workingcapital line. Star was in discussions with the lenders to modifyconditions and other terms necessary to assure that Petro wouldhave sufficient liquidity to operate through the winter. Staranticipated that because of the requirements of Star's currentand potential lenders, it would not be permitted to make anydistributions on its Common Units. Star believed that with thesupport of its existing lenders, which cannot yet be assured, itcould manage the extraordinary challenges arising from currentenergy prices and other factors. However, without that support,Star may be forced to seek interim financing on extremelydisadvantageous terms or even to seek to restructure its debtsunder the protection of the bankruptcy Courts.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Star fell $17.28 pershare, or 80 percent, to close at $4.32 per share on unusuallyhigh trading volume on October 18, 2004.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:info@sbclasslaw.com

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.